Will you regularise or demolish Sainik Farms? HC asks AAP govt

The Delhi High Court today asked the AAP government what was the "difficulty" in telling whether it intended to regularise or demolish the unauthorised constructions in Sainik Farms and gave it three weeks to make its stand clear.
"What is the difficulty in giving an answer as to whether you will regularise or demolish (the illegal constructions)? You want to regularise or not? At least principally decide," a bench of justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva told the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government.
"We are not asking you to frame a policy right away as that would take time. We are saying government has to take a call to regularise or not, which won't take time," it said after Delhi government standing counsel Raman Duggal told the court that the Cabinet has to decide what has to be done.

Duggal said the officials concerned were working hard on the issue, but more time was required to take a decision.
He asked the court not to put pressure on the government to take a decision within a short time as "we might buckle down".
The bench, thereafter, listed the matter for further hearing on September 16, saying that it expects the Delhi government to take a clear stand by then.

The court on July 15 had directed the Delhi government to forward to the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), within two weeks, a concrete proposal on regularisation or otherwise of Sainik Farms area in south Delhi.

The bench had issued the directions after MoUD told it that several meetings had been held with all stakeholders on regularisation of unauthorised colonies inhabited by affluent people and in one such meeting Delhi government had said it would frame regulations for the same.
The court was hearing a PIL filed by an NGO alleging illegal construction in Sainik Farms.
The NGO, in its plea, has contended that over 500 fresh illegal constructions having huge structures have come up in the area and thousands of tonnes of building material are being taken there despite the court's 2007 order prohibiting the same.